College students as catalysts for social change: a case study

Civic Engagement

In 2000 Sax reported that volunteerism had increased among youth while political participation had decreased. However, in the most recent HERI research (Pryor et al., 2006) more freshmen report that they discussed politics frequently as high school seniors, moving up 8.3% points to 33.8% in 2006 from 25.5% in 2004, the last time this question was asked. This increased interest in politics among freshmen is reflected in the mid-term elections of November 2006 in what has been reported as the largest voter turnout in 20 years by voters less than 30 years of age (Szep, 2006). When asked to characterize their political views, not only is the percentage of students identifying as “liberal” at the highest level since 1975 (30.7%), but the percentage identifying as “conservative” (23.9%) is also at the highest point in the history of the Freshman Survey (Pryor et al., 2006). This shows an increased interest of students on both sides of the political spectrum.

This increased commitment to politics may become increasingly important as seen in the Citizenship Education Policy Study (Cogan & Derricott, 2000) which involved policy experts from around the world. The researchers identified nineteen trends likely to challenge society and democracy in the 21^st century. Among the challenges were the widening economic gap among countries and people, information technologies and their impact on privacy and disparity, environmental deterioration, a loss of a sense of community, and a shared belief in the common good. In addition to this, the United Nations has declared the period 2005-2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (U.S. Partnership). Add to that the concerns over the Iraq war and global warming and one would surmise this generation would be pessimistic. Yet almost nine out of ten (88%) students said they are optimistic about their personal futures (Levine & Cureton, 1998, p. 137). In the 2005 HERI research over 82% indicated that helping other people was a ‘major’ reason they decided to participate in volunteer activities (Vogelgesang & Astin, 2005, p. 4). This Millennial group has been taught they can make a difference because they are “special.”

Social factors of the time are significant to civic engagement. Just as the non-violent protests proved important in influencing the 1960s, events such as the growth of service learning and institutional commitment to civic engagement nationwide impacts this generation. There has been remarkable growth of campus volunteer organizations such as Campus Compact, which had 500 campus members in 1997 and more than 1,100 in 2007. According to the Corporation for National and Community Service (2007), volunteering overall in America is near a 30-year high. In 2006, 61.2 million people volunteered. Institutions are showing a renewed commitment to developing civically engaged students and research shows that increasing numbers of students are volunteering and participating in community service (Cone, Cooper & Holland, 2001). Traditional college age students make up over 25% of the volunteers in the nation (Hart Survey, 2007). Since the program model that SLP uses incorporates community service during their MAD tours, this is especially significant for this group.

In 2002 Campus Compact created a student initiative called Raise Your Voice, from which was created a document named Lessons Learned on the Road to Student Civic Engagement (Raill & Hollander, 2006). This national student campaign grew from 33 Wingspread Summit students to more than 270,000 students between 2002 and 2005 on more than 500 campuses. A couple of very interesting lessons came from this document. The student authors felt that “service” is an inadequate term to describe activities they participate in and that the term social engagement should be used to encompass “the social or community-oriented strategies students use to create change” (Raill & Hollander, 2006). Students expressed strong negative connotations with the idea of politics and also felt that college bureaucracies are difficult to navigate. The students also spoke overwhelmingly of the need to use personal relationships in their efforts to engage their peers. They called this “relational organizing,” which is what makes student-led engagement powerful (Raill & Hollander, 2006).

Organizational and Social Change Theories

First, the Eight Stage Process of Creating Major Change (Kotter, 1996) includes the following steps: (a) establish a sense of urgency; (b) create a guiding coalition; (c) develop a vision and strategy; (d) communicate the vision; (e) empower broad based action; (f) generate short-term wins; (g) consolidate gains and produce more change; and (h) anchor new approaches in the culture. Kotter (1995) points out that major change effort often start with just one or two people, but "nothing much worthwhile happens" unless the number of leaders expands exponentially (p. 62). A major premise of SLP supports the concept of creating opportunities for leadership. Other stages such as communicating the vision, empowering others and producing more changes will be explained further in chapter four. Because of these similarities Kotter’s model is a useful lens through which to view SLP.

The Social Change Model (Higher Education Research Institute, 1996) is a leadership and change theory that describes a normative process of creating social change. Seven values-based skills are defined and placed within a developmental process that focuses on the relationship between an individual and his or her community. These seven values are labeled the 7 C’s. The first three values are consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment. These are considered individual values. The second set of values includes collaboration, common purpose, and controversy with civility. These are considered the group process component of the model and focuses on leadership competencies needed to facilitate group development and change between oneself and others. The final C or value is citizenship which is a community or societal value. This model has been adapted and used by college campuses around the US. The Social Change model is symbolically presented in Figure 2.

Adapted from: The Social Change Model of Leadership Development Guidebook Version III, Higher Education Research Institute, 1996.

The third organizational model is called Open Space Technology (OST; Owens, 1997). OST includes Four Principles and One Law which guide the process. “The four principles are: Whoever comes is the right people. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have. Whenever it starts is the right time. When it’s over, it’s over” (p. 95).

The first principle reminds people of the obvious fact that those present are the only ones there. Whatever gets done will get done with them, or not at all. It is essential to concentrate on those who are there. The experience is that, in some strange way, the group present is always the right group. In more practical terms, it has been discovered that if the group is deeply involved in the issue at hand and excited by the possibilities, that involvement and excitement are contagious, and others will soon join in. However, if all the time is spent in telling each other that the group is neither right nor competent, it is always the case that the group will live down to it expectations. The Law of Two Feet briefly stated, this law says that every individual has two feet, and must be prepared to use them. Responsibility resides with exactly one person--each participant. Individuals can make a difference and must make a difference. If that is not true in a given situation, they, and they alone, must take responsibility to use their two feet, and move to a new place where they can make a difference. (Owen, 2000, pp 1-3)

SLP concentrates on those who are there believing those are the right people and helping them reveal their leadership gifts and empowering them to use these gifts. SLP utilizes a similar philosophy of involvement and excitement as OST, calling it “passion.” I will discuss more about other principles and how they tie into the program model in chapter four.

Finally, there are four analogies that are presented by Allen and Cherrey (2000) that fall under organizational change in a networked world. The first analogy is wet sand—similar to networks that will resist force, but like wet sand, if one patiently stands, their imprint will appear; similarly in leadership your influence will be felt. The second analogy is birds on a wire-each time birds take off those left behind ruffle their feathers and settle back down until finally after the third or fourth “flight” all the others follow suit. Similarly like birds, in human networks we need to continue to influence the process over time. As the leading behavior is modeled with humans after time those left behind will follow. The third analogy is yeast—activated through the mixing process of having the right combination of people and conditions. The fourth analogy is that of a beneficial virus. A virus spreads through contact and the quality and quantity of our relationships allow us to impact the network through our influence (pp 57-59). Two of the four analogies, especially, can be used to explain what happens with SLP: yeasts and viruses. Like yeast SLP has had the right combination of people in terms of the four founders and their individual gifts to create the movement. Similarly like a virus they also had the right conditions within colleges for their ideas to be activated. SLP’s viral affect has spread quickly impacting many communities. Understanding these social change theories is important as SLP acts as a catalyst for the transformation of individuals.